Monday, February 28, 2011

God Speed Jane Russell


Jane Russell
1921-2011

Jane Russell was a full-figured woman with flare and attitude. She spoke her mind and wasn't afraid of what people thought of her. I think her impervious personality, her thoughtfulness as well as her down-to-earth nature was what Robert Mitchum, her best friend for many years, admired so much about her. In fact, she was the only non-family member who attended the spreading of Mitchum's ashes.

In the book Baby I Don't Care: Robert Mitchum, Lee Server says the following about Russell's early friendship with Mitchum.
Bob and Jane got along like old buddies... She would rave about his astounding command of the English language - even as he would tell her she was the most inarticulate girl he knew. He would tease her about her God-fearing ways, but he understood she was no Loretta Young, wallowing in piety. He loved to tell the one about the pestering report who couldn't believe a girl with her 'image' read the Bible and went to church each Sunday. 'Hey buddy,' she told him, 'Christians have big breasts, too.' She was good-natured, generous, strong-minded when she had to be, a stand-up guy. Mitchum nickname her 'Hard John.' They became fast friends. 

If you haven't seen the Private Screenings episode with Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell being interviewed by Robert Osborne, I highly suggest you watch it. You learn a lot about both of the actors as well as their dealings with Howard Hughes and their days at RKO. I hope TCM will show it soon with Jane Russell's recent passing.

God Speed Jane Russell. Hope you'll continue to be fabulous wherever you are.

Here is the trailer to my favorite Jane Russell film, His Kind of Woman (1951).

Monday, February 21, 2011

The Uglification of Bette Davis & the Oscars

The Oscars are just around the corner and in thinking of these awards, I'm reminded how, in the past 10 years or so, the Academy has favored actresses who have transformed themselves physically for their movie role with nominations and/or Oscar statuettes. In an industry that is so focused on a specific type of beauty, the fact that these actresses were willing to sacrifice what they had in order to throw themselves into a role that they believed in is in many ways admirable. Let's look at a few examples:

Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry (1999) - won
Salma Hayek in Frida (2002) - nominated
Nicole Kidman in The Hours (2002) - won
Charlize Theron in Monster (2003) - won
Mo'Nique in Precious (2009) - won

While this seems like a recent trend, it has happened in the past. Certain classic film actresses chose to strip their makeup and expose themselves to the harsh unforgiving lens of the movie camera in order to honor their character's role in the film. One that comes to mind is Norma Shearer in Marie Antoinette (1938). Yes I know it's one of her "prestige" films and she donned wigs, makeup and fabulous period costumes throughout the film. But at the end of the movie, when Marie Antoinette is imprisoned and about to be beheaded, there is a poignant scene with Norma Shearer, sans makeup and with a worn and fearful expression on her countenance all of which makes you forget that she is the Queen of MGM.

The best example I can think of, of a classic film actress undergoing a dramatic physical transformation is Bette Davis in The Private Lives of Essex and Elizabeth (1939). Davis was determined, at all costs, to look the part of Queen Elizabeth I. And in a time when historical pictures were frivolous with facts and details, it's admirable to see how devoted Davis was to being as historically accurate as possible.

From the book, Fasten Your Seat Belts: The Passionate Life of Bette Davis by Lawrence J. Quirk

[Makeup artist] Perc Westmore... shaved Davis's hair back two inches, thus underlining the reality of baldness under the red wigs and hairpieces. He then applied white, pasty makeup and shaved off her eyebrows, replacing them with thin lines that, in Robert Lord's words, 'made her look like a baby in a Halloween mask and costume.'
Davis spent much time studying portrait reproductions provided by the research department, seeking to approximate Elizabeth's actual appearance as accurately as possible. Her own appearance meant nothing to her - only historical accuracy. 'Make me up horribly, and dress me outlandishly - I don't care, so long as you get the essence of the original,' she told Perc Westmore and [costume designer] Orry-Kelly. 


Yet Bette Davis didn't win the Oscar for this performance. She wasn't even nominated for it. Instead, the Academy favored her performance in Dark Victory (1939) more and she was nominated for that role. If Bette Davis had done the same two performances in today's day and age, would she have won for Private Lives of Essex and Elizabeth instead?

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Fireball (1950) and thank you to @WarnerArchive



Fireball (1950) is pure novelty! From the campy plot, to Marilyn Monroe's supporting role, to Mickey Rooney on roller skates. It's a film I've been waiting years to see, ever since I had plotted to watch every Marilyn Monroe film known to man. And I've seen a lot. The good, the bad and the downright ugly. I watched a horrible late Marx Bros. movie for just a glimpse of Marilyn Monroe. I suffered through scenes with Ricardo Montalban macking on a not-so-sexy June Allyson in front of her then husband Dick Powell in Right Cross (1950) ::shudder::. But I've also discovered some really great films such as The Asphalt Jungle (1950), Clash By Night (1952) and All About Eve (1950). I've seen most of Monroe's catalog except for 4 and folks are not even sure if she's in 2 of those! What I really wanted to see was Fireball. Mickey Rooney, roller skating and Marilyn Monroe. That was enough to sell me on it. It helps that I had a career in roller skating too (a short career that ended with a broken hand).



Mickey Rooney plays Johnny Casar, a rebellious teen who is desperate to get out of the orphanage run by Father O'Hara (Edward O'Brien). Desperate for a meal, he steals some roller skates to pawn them for some cash. But when a cop stops him, he's forced to pretend the skates are his, puts them on and rolls on down the street in comedic fashion and lands himself right in front of a diner. This is when a series of opportunities present themselves to Johnny, and the eager young man seizes every single one of them and eventually rises to become a Roller Derby star. Marilyn Monroe is a sophisticated party gal who is in with the ritzy crowd but is titillated by the danger and excitement that comes with watching Roller Derby (it's like a fancy gal watching a boxing match in a pre-code!).

There is a lot of Mickey Rooney hate out there but you won't find it here. I love Mickey Rooney. For pete's sake, I drove all the way to Atlantic City to see the legend perform on stage. Rooney was as far away from me that glorious night in NJ as our television screen is from my sofa. Rooney is a pint-size ball of energy and his forte was entertaining on screen and on stage with that endless enthusiasm. Rooney was perfect for the role of Johnny. He had a knack for physical comedy and his energy allowed him to keep up with all the skating (and yes he did skate in most of the film!). If anyone is going to play a tireless pint-size athlete with a stubborn will to succeed, it's gotta be Mickey Rooney. (May I suggest a double feature with Rooney's other got-himself-in-too-deep film Quicksand (1950)?)

What's so wonderful about the Warner Archive is that we get to see all of those wonderful films that have been collecting dust for years in the Warner Bros. vaults. They are wonderful for a few reasons. Some are so bad, they are just so much fun to see. Some are real jewels, ones we've lusted after for years but were always out of reach. Some are brand new discoveries, eye-opening adventures. So thank you Warner Archive for putting out Fireball (1950). I thank you from the bottom of my Mickey-Rooney-Marilyn-Monroe-Roller-Skating-loving heart.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Interview with John Stangeland, Warren William biographer

I had the pleasure of interviewing John Stangeland, author of the book Warren William: Magnificent Scoundrel of Pre-Code Hollywood (read my review of the book here). Apart from being a Warren William expert, an excellent writer and a swell guy all around, Stangeland is also a freelance comic book artist for Marvel, DC, Comico, Malibu and Now Comics. He owns a comic book store called Atlas Comics in Norridge, Illinois.

Please make sure you check out Stangeland's guest post on Cliff's website Warren-William.com as well as Cliff's interview of Stangeland.

Stangeland is also on Twitter (@magnificentcad) and writes a blog called: Magnificentscoundrel's Blog: Celebrating Warren William, Hollywood's Genius of Scurility.

------------





How did you first develop an interest in Warren William?

I've been watching classic Hollywood movies since I was a young kid in the early 70's, but it wasn't until 2004 that I encountered the essential Warren William. That summer, a friend gave me a tape of Skyscraper Souls, The Mouthpiece and Employees' Entrance, and I was both completely baffled and utterly fascinated. I couldn't believe I wasn't aware of him, especially since I was such a long time Warner Brothers fan. I subsequently realized that I had seen him multiple times before - in Imitation of Life and The Wolfman, among other pictures - but that those performances never made any kind of impression on me. His starring roles were clearly of a different stripe: forceful and charged with energy - unlike, for example Madame X, where he drifts in and out without much to do. I was hooked from that very day. From there, my curiousity got the better of me. With no solid information out there about him, I began some modest detective work and little by little I got hooked by the process.

Why did you decide to write this book? 

Besides my general interest, there were a few personal reasons for undertaking this project. First, the more I learned about Warren William the more I liked him, and the more I found him to share some similar characteristics with me. That made it very easy to devote my energy to uncovering his story. Also, my interest in history is very strong, and Warren's story - being famous and then forgotten - was extremely intriguing. I think the past is immensely important and not enough people pay attention to it, so the opportunity to document someone for modern audiences to rediscover was uppermost in my mind. Finally, it was my greatest opportunity to avoid beginning a creative project and not finishing it, something I've done a number of times. The energy, the interest and the desire were all there and stayed strong throughout, not the least because I respected and liked Warren William so much.  

What do you hope readers of your book will get out of the experience?

First, I hope they'll have a reasonably complete picture of Warren's life and the times in which he worked. More importantly, I hope readers take to heart the idea of sharing what they love with others around them. Anything someone hasn't read or seen before is new to them, and if anything - new or old - speaks to you, it should be passed on to those who can husband it for subsequent generations. That continuity is something like immortality. 

How long did it take you to write it and how much research did you do?

If I had been aware of how long this would all take I might have thought better of it right at the beginning! I did some online snooping for a number of months before I took my first research trip out to the West Coast in the summer of 2006. I really consider that the start of the actual process of writing the book. During the course of the next three years I went to Los Angeles twice more, and also traveled to New York, Connecticut, Wisconsin and Minnesota to dredge up leads. A lot of people helped along the way: archivists, historians, librarians, and of course Warren's surviving family members, who were nothing but gracious and generous with their time, memories and artifacts. In the end, I believe that there was about three solid years of research, and perhaps eighteen months of writing and pulling it together. Most of this was done in my spare time - nights and weekends - stretching the whole process to just over three and a half years from serious start to finished manuscript. 

Did you visit Aitkin, Minnesota, Warren William's home town, during your research?

I did indeed. It's about seven hours from where I live in Chicago, and I took a weekend trip there in 2008. The people couldn't have been nicer; I had a local writer (and resident Warren William fan) to show me around, and I was able to peruse the archives of the Aitkin Independent Age newspaper, which Warren's father owned. I even received a tour of the house young Warren William grew up in (built the summer he was five years old), which was a genuine treat. In addition to the opportunity to pick up facts that I couldn't find anywhere else, it was very helpful to get a sense of the place. Aitkin hasn't changed much in the intervening years, still being a small, close knit community. Seeing where Warren grew and played was indispensible for flavor and color. 

What was the most frustrating part of doing your research? Most joyful?

There was surprizingly little frustration in the research. A lot of things seemed to come together in pieces that fit very well with what I already knew. The joy of this project was most certainly encountering the extremely generous and good hearted people who helped me along the way. My Aitkin contact, Connie Pettersen, went above and beyond. Archivists at Warner Brothers, the Shubert organization, the American Academy and many other places were simply marvelous. The moment that I found Warren's neices (with the help of the lovely Valerie Yaroz at SAG) was very satisfying. Both Barbara and Patricia are particularly sweet, and meeting them was probably the high point of the process - they really love their famous uncle. 

Is there anything about Warren William you wanted to find out about but couldn't?

I really wish I had been able to discover more about Warren's health troubles during his final years. I did piece together a solid framework of the story, but I wanted to have access to more details. Unfortunately, those records are either long gone, or simply lost to the ages. Oh, and I'd certainly like to know more about Bette Davis' accusation of Warren's wolfish behavior towards her. It seems utterly out of place, but as a historian and researcher I can't dismiss it or confirm it without some further information.

Is there anything about Warren William that surprised you?

The fact that he and his wife Helen were so far apart in age - she was 17 years his senior - was quite a surprize. They stayed together the rest of their lives in spite of his parents objections, and the presumed siren calls of his being a film star during the Golden Age of Hollywood. THAT is an accomplishment.

Which film do you consider Warren William's best? Worst?

This is a VERY tough question. I've had the unenviable task of introducing Warren William to many people over the last five or six years, and I'm always aware of the difficulty of deciding just which persona that I want to reveal based on the temperament of the person who is seeing him for the first time. Not everyone appreciates him as the magnificent bastard of Skyscraper Souls or Employees' Entrance - he did his job so well in those pictures that some people simply dislike him as a result. If I were going to pick the film that seems the most satisfying to modern audiences AND features one of his best performances, it would be The Mouthpiece (1932). It has a great character arc, and some genuinely riveting scenes. And, although it has some modest deficiencies, I think Lady For a Day is quite satisfying. Although the focus of the picture is on May Robson, Warren has a fantastic role and gives a great performance in it.

As to his worst film, I'm going to have to pick Satan Met a Lady (1936). I know it is starting to garner a minor rep as an underrated screwball farce, but I'm not on that bandwagon. It's a cheap, unruly attempt to forge a mystery / comedy hybrid and it fails miserably, as least partly because Warren overplays his role to grotesque proportions. And my runner up is Smarty (1934) - as reprehensible and disagreeable a film as I've ever seen. 

What was the most fun piece of information/trivia you found out about Warren William?

The love he showed for dogs was simply amazing. Warren and his wife had no kids, and it was clear that their dogs were surrogate children for the couple. During his life he did a LOT of charity work for animal rights, and even donated some of his estate to help those creatures that had given him so much pleasure. The thing that almost everyone else comments on is his amateur inventing career, and the creation of his "rolling apartment" - the panel truck that he personally built and outfitted as one of the earliest recreational vehicles. If there were one other thing I'd like to have that I couldn't find, it would be some photographs of his motorized brain child.

The last thing I'd like to say, Raquelle - after thanking you for your interest - is that if people love Warren William, I hope they'll continue to spread the word of his career. My greatest wish is that 50 or 100 years from now, there are still fans talking about him and rediscovering his work. And if they want to learn more, I'm proud to have done the work for them to find out what they'd like to know. 

Popular Posts

 Twitter   Instagram   Facebook